(Part 2) Best products from r/ainbow

I think I'm going with this K.A. Mitchell book, have you read it?

The liquor books seem to have better reviews starting from the second book, but it sounds like a lot of people don't like the first. Would I be better off skipping the first and going straight to the second?

Also, I'm sorry for the delayed replies (life, etc.), but I wanted to let you know I really appreciated you taking the time to comment! You helped turn me on to two fairly prolific authors, so if she likes either one, that's going to be a great help keeping her supplied in books! Thanks again!

Many of my friends/family members/acquaintances from my hometown are severely homophobic fore religious reasons. After responding to countless letters saying more or less the same things as your friend, I've started just copying and pasting the same answers, with minor changes depending on the circumstances. Here's the most recent version of my standard reply. Feel free to use any/all of it.

> [Friend's name] you might be interested to know that god does not, in fact, oppose gay marriage (or gay rights, or gay people in general). If you're interested in learning what god actually says (as opposed to what bigoted pastors say), I suggest reading "What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality" by Dr. Daniel Helminiak (www.amazon.com/What-Bible-Really-about-Homosexuality/dp/188636009X). If you don't have time to read an entire book, you could check out a much shorter article by Dr. Mona West, "The Bible and Homosexuality" found at http://mccchurch.org/download/theology/homosexuality/BibleandHomosexuality.pdf or any of the other articles hosted by the Metropolitan Community Church: http://mccchurch.org/resources/mcc-theologies/. These are written by biblical scholars (i.e. people who actually know what they're talking about) and their perspectives are incomparably more valuable than those provided by poorly trained ministers.

> If you prefer a movie to a book, you could try "One Nation under God" or "For the Bible Tells me So" both of which are available streaming on Netflix, or "Prayers for Bobby" which airs occasionally on the Lifetime channel and can probably be found at a local video store. Any one of them should be able to give you a much clearer understanding of god's opinion on LGBT issues.

> Lastly, if you want to skip reading or watching, and prefer to talk to a real person, try the ministers at [local LGBT friendly churches]. I can guarantee that they are better versed in biblical perspectives of LGBT issues than most of the rest of the churches in [my hometown], and I know they would be very happy to talk to you.

You knew what it meant. ;) Descriptive grammar is a bitch, ain't it?

For one, I can make sure that your reputation among this subreddit's user base is trash. But you're already doing a fine job of that. For another, I can ride every comment you make in this thread until you get positively sick of dealing with me. Neither of us seems to want that.

Let me tell you why you're a fucking moron in the terms that the academics use though, since you want so badly to be schooled. What you posit is that orthodoxy is problematic, and then you make a huge leap of logic by applying orthodoxy to all religion. However, all religion is not orthodoxic, only the dominant religions of western culture. So right off the bat, half the globe doesn't prescribe to your naive take on religion.

Let me familiarize you with orthopraxy, since your Dunning Kruger is showing. The difference between orthodoxy and orthopraxy is that orthodoxy describes a religion as "having proper belief", while orthopraxy describes a religion as "having proper practice". Furthermore, there is the additional component of whether any faith is dogmatic or non-dogmatic. There are orthodoxic and orthopraxic religions that are dogmatic, but many more orthopraxic religions are non-dogmatic.

So what does that look like? A good example of a dogmatic, orthodoxic religion is Christianity (and really any Abrahamic faith). Even Confucianism is arguably some degree of orthodoxic, however the teachings of Confucius have much more to do with how one lives, so it would fall under orthopraxy. You can be a great Buddhist without ever believing in Buddha, as well. There are Hindu sects that don't dogmatically believe in the gods, but they do place emphasis on "right practice".

Most, if not all, pagan faiths (allowing for marginal ones with which I haven't yet become acquainted; there are hundreds if not thousands of ancient world cultures and attempts to reconstruct their faiths start every day it seems) have no doctrine, and what's more, many of them de-emphasize the divine or even don't believe in them at all. What is common among most, if not all pagan faiths is do ut des, or "I give so that you may give". For some this is a direct exchange with the gods - myself, for example. For others this is a means of connecting with a higher consciousness. This forms the basis of ritual, offering, and sacrifice. Before you foolishly squall "herp derp nobody sacrifices in the modern day", yes they fucking do, it is legal to kill livestock in many parts of the world, even the US, and furthermore sacrifice has expanded to encompass giving up anything of value, not just life.

>You can't hold all pagan beliefs simultaneously, so please if you really had that much research on the topic it would show.

In point of fucking fact, yes I can. I don't personally - I primarily practice Norse heathenry. This is another piece of evidence of your perception of world religions through a Christian lens, that to worship divinities outside of one's religion is blasphemy. Very few pagan religions have any concept of blasphemy. Roman and Greek civic cultus focused primarily on "what was good for society", which is why the Jewish diaspora was possible, while Rome had a big problem with Christianity. Because, and only because, Christians were a threat to the civic cultus of the society in ways that Judaism was not.

This concept, the admittance of syncretism and the worship of many - even all - pantheons, is called "pluralism", and it is almost universal to paganism. There is no doctrine (see that word again?) or dogma (oh and that one) that demands or demanded historically that pagans only worship one pantheon. In fact, to think that pantheons existed discreetly from nation to nation in the first place is reductive and downright foolish, especially among tribal cultures. There is documented evidence that the Suebi in Germany for example worshipped Isis. Possibly interpretatio romana, but this is one of many examples. Another would be the similarities between Frigg and Freyja, between Ingvi and Freyr, and the many syncretisms between Greek and Roman gods. No one would have any reason to object to a person making cult offerings to another god, so long as that other god didn't demand exclusivity (like the Christian god).

So shut the fuck up.

Edit:

Reference Materials:

• Marcel Mauss - The Gift
  
  
• Paul C Bauschatz - The Well and the Tree
  
  
• Mircea Eliade - The Sacred and the Profane
  
  
• M. Avrum Ehrlich - Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora
  
  
• Tacitus - Agricola and Germania

Your boyfriend really needs to step in and tell them to back off because it's also not your responsibility to deal with this. Regardless, here's some answers to your questions.

>About the condoms, we do plan on wearing them, but I was wondering if it's ever safe to not wear them.

Let's be clear upfront... The only "safe sex" method is abstinence. Anything else just reduces the chance of something bad happening, but the risk is never reduced to nothing. Worst case scenario for having anal sex without a condom is an infection, assuming both individuals are STI free.

>But as for it being messy back there, what kind of worst case scenario could we expect?

In terms of anatomy, you should think of your colon as a storage room. When you digest food, it gets stored in the colon until you eliminate. As such, you should just make sure you use the bathroom a few hours before you partake in anal sex. The colon keeps itself pretty clean. Just shower before you do it and make sure you clean up in that time.

You can also douche, but that can rid your body of enzymes helpful in digestion. It also shouldn't be necessary.

> I understand that if he has a cut on or around his groin, trace amounts of fecal matter may get in and cause complications, so we wouldn't do it if that were the case, but I've also heard that some may get in through the urethra, and cause a urinary infection.

Honestly, if fecal matter is flying everywhere when you have sex, I'd say you're not cleaning enough prior. You can google how to prepare for it without douching and you should be fine. I think that worrying about a cut on your partner's groin is a bit much. Just bandaid and maybe clean it after.

Here's a book I'd strongly suggest:
http://www.amazon.com/Guide-Getting-Book-About-Wonders/dp/1885535759/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1367800942&sr=8-1&keywords=the+guide+to+getting+it+on

It's great and will answer a lot of general questions you might have.

Let me know if you've still got questions, but don't fall into the idea that anal sex is going to be messy. It's obviously not going to be 100% clean, but there's no reason you should see fecal matter (or smell it). If you do pull out and see it on your condom, either call it quits until next time or get a new condom.

I never really had an experience like you an that kid, but your parents reaction sound a lot like mine would have been. For most people when they come out, their parents (if they aren't pro-gay) often times will go into a denial period. Coming out isn't just an experience for yourself, everyone you know is effected too. If/When you come out to your parents, don't be mad at them for rejecting the new idea of you being bisexual. They grew up during a time where gays were labeled as horrible and lifestyle that would cause you to be a "Flaming drug using party animal" (not everyone had that view, but it was a stereotype). Along with adding what the bible says about gays being an abomination and to be condemned to hell, it will be a bit of a shock to your family. I'm not saying this to try to persuade you not to come out, in fact, I do want you to be able to come out to everyone. But I just also want you to know your parents (possible) side of things.

To answer your questions, I thought that my mom would want to get me out of the house when I came out, but she didn't. Until you know for sure, I wouldn't come out to them. I'd recommend reading up on information about gays and maybe start a small little conversation and try to clear things up for her. Don't say you are gay/bi, but just get her facts straight. By doing this you should be able to understand how extreme her views are on the subject and be able to figure out if she will kick you out or not. About them bugging you about it, that will probably be an absolute at first. My mother said she was praying for me. Since I don't believe in any religion it was completely meaningless to me and didn't bother me. I don't know your views, but having someone pray for you shouldn't be a bad thing. You should read up on what you can so you can inform them of what it means to actually be gay (I'm using this term lightly to cover Bi/Pansexual too). I have no way of knowing how your family will treat you when you come out. I'm sure it will be a bit awkward feeling at first, but over time it will smooth out. I haven't really read much of this book, but there is a book called "Is it a choice?" by Eric Markus Link Here that has a bunch of questions and answers. Feel free to PM me if you ever need to talk or ask questions. I really wish you good luck for all of this. Don't rush anything.

I'd first like to start by saying that /u/sleetthefox has two really good recommendations. Then here are some others:

Washed and Waiting

On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons

Also, you should encourage your friend to understand that Catholicism means intellectual submission only to those teachings spoken infallibly, and that there is considerable debate on whether or not the Catholic Church should recognize same-sex marriages. The Catechism was not written infallibly (something that I've been corrected on very recently!) and there is a huge body of Catholic literature debating the points of full acceptance of homosexual persons.

Let me know if you have questions!

I'm sorry you're dealing with this. Their mindset right now is not permanent. You should get your parents the very best book on the subject of gay people and Christianity. It's called:

UNFAIR: Christians and the LGBT Question by John Shore

Read the reviews on Amazon. If you can't afford it, I'll buy you one.

You should check out is this short video from Dan Savage, creator of the It Gets Better Project, about coming out to conservative Christian parents.

Pease also read this really honest conversation about religion and homosexuality, called I’m Christian, Unless You’re Gay and the moving response called A Teen’s Brave Response to “I’m Christian, Unless You’re Gay”.

Here are also more responses to the original article.

Good luck.

"I was a tall, good-looking gay man who had resolved to marry an innocent (read virginal) woman, and I was spending my Saturday evenings in the company of a cast of outlaws who, like me, were risking everything for their desires.

Born in 1923, George Montague has seen many changes in his lifetime, few greater than the attitudes towards and legalities of homosexuality—attitudes and laws that saw him persecuted and criminalized for the sin of loving another man. Here are the moving, if often humorous, memoirs of an indefatigable man, committed to helping people accept homosexuality even if they may not understand it. After all, as he puts it, "If I don’t understand why I am the way I am, why should anyone else? But why should it matter?" Now in his nineties, George is finally beginning to see the acceptance he longed for through his younger years—and is proud to be the oldest gay in the village."

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Oldest-Gay-Village-George-Montague/dp/1782199160

How I learned to Snap is a rather fun read, and much more positive. A lot of fun lines like "My father never spanked me, which is probably why today nothing hits the spot like a good over-the-knee paddling."

Get another shot ready.

No, I really should try to follow my username.

I'm a language descriptivist, not a language prescriptivist. Essentially, the distinction is that for descriptivists, the definition of words is how they are used, whereas for prescriptivists, the definition of a word is prescribed, usually by a particular authority, such as a dictionary.

In the descriptivist paradigm, it is impossible to use a word incorrectly (but it can be used contrary to what is usual or expected), new words come into and out of existence all the time, and a person can define a word for their own contextual use as they please.

In the prescriptivist paradigm, a word is incorrect if its use doesn't match the prescribing authority, new words must be specifically added by the authority, and a person is supposed to find the exact word or composition of words they need from the provided supply.

I find some problems with prescriptivism. First off, it means that some people who own the language others use. Second, there are many prescribing authorities, and they don't all agree. Third, if you want a word to describe a new concept, you're screwed.

I like descriptivism. First off, it's a better, more accurate model for how people actually use language; people make up new words all the time; languages evolve, borrowing and adapting where they see fit. Second, allowing people to define words within a context allows for more expressiveness, compactness, and power in the language we use.

An example of a prescriptive language in French[1]. An prescriptive authority would be one like Webster's dictionary[2].

A descriptive language would be one like English. A descriptive authority would be one like the Oxford English Dictionary.

[1] French has the infamous Académie française, which determines exactly what the language consists of. The academy has been involved in suppression of native languages such as Breton and Basque as recently as 2008, and of native languages in the french colonies when France had colonies. Prescriptivists can commit crimes against humanity.

[2] Noah Webster was a very important person in the history of english, for many of the wrong reasons. He was staunchly involved in trying to reform english, and was more or less singlehandedly responsible for a number of changes in our speak. The dictionary itself has strayed towards descriptivism since its book on english usage in 1993.

The topic is actually a really big one, and well discussed. An excellent book on the history of english that touches on the subject is The Mother Tongue, by Bill Bryson.

Check out a book called Living in Sin? by John Shelby Spong, an Episcopalian bishop. It takes a look at the passages in the Bible that seem to go against homosexuality and women in authority/power and discusses the historical contexts of why they're in the Bible and why Christians now cling to them. Lots to think about. Lots to make your family think about too.

Check out Metropolitan Community Churches. I attended a few when I was a believer. MCC is considered a "gay church" in that they serve a primarily LGBT population. They are generally positive, affirming places. I was an enthusiastic member of a couple of them and enjoyed them quite a lot.

Good luck!

OP, if Furry isn't a problem then Tank Jaeger is pretty damn awesome also. He has a bunch of long stories that he posted free online (A Chance of Showers, Winter Help, Exposure, and the most recent is Filling the Void which he is still releasing one chapter at a time), and recently self published one of them (a sci-fi romance called Beneath the Skin that is really great). It's all m/m, and usually there's a lot of build up to anything sexy. There's no sex in BTS until about chapter 28 iirc. I have a digital copy of it from before he took it off his profile, if anyone can't buy the book but still wants to read it PM me I guess. It's really long though, the paperback is ~830 pages.

(I like Tank's writing a lot more than I like Kyell's but that's just me.)

Other Voices, Other Rooms by Truman Capote, openly gay author of Breakfast at Tiffany's. To be honest the prose is a little too flowery, but it's cool because it's an early (1948) story following a young teenage boy's growing respect/fascination/attraction with a gay man. There's even a cool girl the boy's age who's almost a love interest except it shows how that's just not really what he's about. Bonus: the girl is modeled after Harper Lee, the author of To Kill A Mockingbird, who grew up with Capote. http://www.amazon.com/Other-Voices-Rooms-Truman-Capote/dp/0679745645

Those kinds of studies are really interesting. But I still think everyone should read this little book, particularly the part about chocolate.

Suppose, to paraphrase, that you were studying my experience of gender. If you could study and understand every neuron in my brain perfectly, that wouldn't tell you anything about my experience of gender, because my experiences are inside me and yours are inside you. Even if you opened up my skull and found that my brain tasted like sugar, spice and everything nice, it would just mean I have a delicious brain, not a female mind.

One influence has been that we have shared the stories of our lgbt members widely within the church. Two books that have been taken to heart by many of our members are Homosexual Saints: The Community of Christ Experience and Touched by Grace: LGBT Stories in Community of Christ.

Another factor is that we value community and common values more than common belief.